John MacDonald: Your house is going to be your castle again

There’s a lot to take in with these planning law changes. But what it comes down to is the Government wants people to be able to do more with their own property with less red tape. 

If you want to do something that has no impact on anyone else, you’ll be able to do it. Your house, your castle. 

That’s where there could be a few sticking points, because who determines what impacts others and what doesn’t? But overall, I like what the Government is doing. 

And I know it will have looked for some of the most extreme examples of the current planning laws to sell the changes it’s making. Which is to ditch the Resource Management Act and replace it with a planning act and a natural environment act. 

But you can’t argue with the minister responsible, Chris Bishop, when he says we need to see the end of developers being told one thing by one council planner and something different by another – such as one planner saying front doors have to face the street and another saying they can’t. 

What the Government is saying is that the days of council planners playing god are over. And amen to that. 

So the sorts of things it’s going to let us do without needing consents are things like adding a balcony or a deck or building a garage. 

Chris Bishop says he knows of a guy who wanted to replace a garage on his property but spent nine months arguing with the council, because the council didn’t like the look of the garage. 

It seems a lot of people are saying the devil will be in the detail. And one of the sticking points or potential bones of contention I see is where do you draw the line at what impacts others and what doesn’t. 

For example: the Government wants me to be able to build a deck at my place without a consent, providing it has no impact on others. But what if building that deck means I can see over the fence more easily? 

Overall, though, I’m in favour of letting people do more with their own property with less red tape. 

But how do you feel about it? 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from newstalksb.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
My House, My Castle. There's a lot to take in
with these planning law changes announced yesterday, but what it
comes down to is the government wants people to be
able to do more with their own property with less
red tape to contend with. Essentially, if you want to
do something that has no impact on anyone else, you'll

(00:35):
be able to do it your house, your castle. Now
that's where there could be a few sticking points, because
who determines what impacts others and what doesn't, not to
mention the potential for the natural environment to come off
a bit worse for wear in some cases. But overall,
can you find out what you think? But overall I

(00:57):
like what the government's doing and look, I know it
will have looked for some of the most extreme examples
of the current planning laws to sell the chin it's making,
which is by the way, to ditch the Resource Management
Act and replace it with a Planning Act and a
Natural Environment Act, and it will have looked for crazy cases.

(01:18):
But you can't argue with the Minister Responsible, Chris Bishop,
when he says we need to see the end of
crazy situations like this.

Speaker 3 (01:26):
I know of a housing development down in christ Church
where the housing developer went along to the council and said,
you know, here's the houses we want to build. They
spent hours and days and endless amounts of money arguing
with the council about which way the front door faced,
and the council said, well, in christ Church we want
the front door to face the street because we've got
a very neighborly community here, which all sounds fine. So

(01:49):
they made the house have the front door face the street.
And then same council, different planner, same housing developer a
few months later said, in a different part of town, oh,
by the way, we want we want your house where
the front door needs to face away from the street,
because in christ Church we value our seclusion in our privacy.

(02:11):
It's that sort of it's stupidity, frankly, that drives people
up the wall, and it's causing them endless amounts of
red tape effectively.

Speaker 2 (02:19):
Effectively, what Chris Bishop was saying is that the days
that the council planners playing God are over.

Speaker 3 (02:25):
Things that are internal to your site are off limits
for the planning system. So if you have an effect
on somebody else. That's fair enough. So you know, if
I set up an industrial effluent factory on my property
and it has a run off to the next door, well,
that has an effect on somebody else. But which way
my front door faces, which way the living room faces,
where the TV is in the living room, there's another

(02:47):
real life example where planners have got involved in which
way the TV faces and the layout of the living room.
That stuff sorry off limits. It's not a function of
the planning system. It's a decision for you and your family.
It's not a function of a local council planner.

Speaker 2 (02:59):
Amen to that a So the sorts of things the
government's going to let us do without needing consents are
things like adding a balcony or a deck, or building
a garage. Chris Bishop says he knows of a guy
who wanted to replace a garage on his property, but
he spent nine months arguing with the council because why
because the councilor didn't like the look of it, didn't

(03:20):
like the look of the garage. And so those kinds
of arguments are going to be history. Some of the
heritage requirements are going to be history as well. Again
Chris Bishop, citing the case of a gas tank near
the airport in Wellington which has heritage protection, but because
it's got that, the new development proposed for that site
hasn't been able to go ahead. No more of that
carry on, That's what the government's saying. No more of that,

(03:41):
no more on gas tanks getting in the way of progress.
I see that there's quite a few people saying, well,
the devil will be in the detail, and of which
is true? And one of the sticking points or potential
bones of contention I see in relation to letting people
do what they want with their own property, providing it
doesn't impact anyone else. The tricky thing I see with

(04:03):
that is where do you draw the line at what
impacts others and what doesn't. For example, the government wants
me to be able to build a deck in my
place without a consent right, providing it has no impact
on others. But what if building that deck means I
can see over the fence a little bit into the neighbors.
Does that meet the threshold for impacting others. That's an

(04:26):
example where I see the lines getting blurred when these
new laws come into force. But overall, I'm in favor
of letting people do more with their own property with
less red tape.

Speaker 1 (04:37):
I'm in favor for more from Canterbory Mornings with John McDonald.
Listen live to news talks It'd Be Christ Church from
nine am weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio